The "tattletale rule" is only one of the provisions farmers don't like about the impending water quality regulations. Others include:• Paperwork: Farmers argue the paperwork requir...

» Read more

X

Other objections

The "tattletale rule" is only one of the provisions farmers don't like about the impending water quality regulations. Others include:

• Paperwork: Farmers argue the paperwork required as a result of the new rules is redundant and burdensome.

• Events: The rules require some farmers to attend educational events once a year, which the growers say is burdensome, unreasonable and expensive.

• Groundwater: The rules extend not only to runoff into rivers and streams, but also to groundwater below farmers' fields. But the farmers say that not that all of the water sinking into the ground actually becomes groundwater, and that pollutants applied on fields might not get there anyway.

» Social News

New rules to protect water quality would force farmers to "tattle" on other farmers.

At least, that's how they see it.

A local growers coalition would be required to send membership lists to state water cops - identifying not only the farmers who follow the rules, but also the bad apples who don't.

Farmers warn the so-called "tattletale rule" will erode longtime relationships of trust and perhaps thwart the very purpose of the new rules. That is, to protect the region's already polluted waterways from additional harm.

"The whole thing will fall apart if we start fingering farmers for fines," said John Herrick, an attorney for south Delta farmers and a board member of the San Joaquin County Resource Conservation District, which runs the coalition.

State officials say they need to know who is not following the rules if those rules are going to accomplish anything.

"Absent that information, for us it's a guessing game," said Joe Karkoski, a supervising engineer with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

The controversy is just one part of perhaps the most significant new regulations that San Joaquin County farmers will face in their lifetimes. The rules are scheduled to be considered on March 12 in Rancho Cordova, and Stockton-area farmers plan to travel to the meeting by bus to make their voices heard.

Some context is important. Agriculture was exempted from the federal Clean Water Act more than 40 years ago, and until recently farmers were never held fully accountable for pollution running off their lands from pesticide or fertilizer use.

But in 1999, state legislation compelled officials here to act.

Farmers are now required to either get their own individual permits to discharge pollution, or pay a fee to join large coalitions which monitor rivers for pollution and educate growers about best practices.

The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board is now considering expanding those rules and making them permanent. Similar rules have already been approved or are in the works up and down the Valley.

Only recently does the "tattletale rule" appear to have become a hot issue, however.

The new provision requires the growers coalition to submit lists of farmers who are in good standing, as well as those who are not. The coalition would have to report "why a member was dropped or whether a member had failed to meet their obligations," according to state documents.

The Resource Conservation District runs the coalition. Its board of directors includes farmers or farm representatives.

In that sense, the district's submittal of lists to state regulators would amount to farmers snitching on their peers, critics say.

The district works with public agencies and private landowners on projects to conserve natural resources like soil and water. It views itself as a non-threatening third party. The last thing it wants is to be perceived as an extension of the state government.

"I think people are going to think twice about engaging with us," said Molly Watkins, a district board member and member of a farming family in Linden. "They'll say, 'Do I really want to do (business) with these guys?' "

It's not that bad actors shouldn't be held accountable, she said.

But the state could easily get the information it needs on its own, by studying annual membership lists for any changes, Watkins said.

The proposal was not entirely a surprise. John Brodie, a district staffer, said the "tattletale" language had been included in previous drafts. Local officials asked for it to be removed, and it was, only to be reinserted once more.

He said that if the rule is approved, it's unclear whether the conservation district will be able to continue in its role with the coalition, raising questions about the coalition's very future.

The state says its request for names is perfectly reasonable.

Failing to disclose the names of noncompliant farmers would basically "shield (them) from any meaningful follow-up or consequences," the board says in documents.

But farmers also stand to benefit from supplying the information, Karkoski said.

If the local coalition refused to divulge the names, state water officials would have to investigate on their own. That could increase the state's costs, which are passed on to growers, he said.

"We're trying to keep costs low," Karkoski said.

The state - not the district - will handle any enforcement actions that result from the release of the names, he said. And in many cases, "heavy-handed enforcement" might not be necessary at all.

"Our goal is compliance," Karkoski said. "If a grower is not meeting their obligation, that suggests something is not working with the system."

Contrary to the farmers' concerns, Stockton environmentalist Bill Jennings believes the new rules don't go far enough. He has called for farmers to be regulated individually, which would likely cost them far more than joining the coalition.

Even with the names of both compliant and noncompliant growers, water officials will not know exactly who is discharging which pollutants, and what the effects are of those discharges on rivers and streams, Jennings said.

"The coalitions are essentially a shield to protect farmers from the law," he said. "A farmer's not going to snitch. And you can't catch them if they don't."

Contact reporter Alex Breitler at (209) 546-8295 or abreitler@recordnet.com. Follow him at recordnet.com/breitlerblog and on Twitter @alexbreitler.